corona virus alerts - Latest cruising Information for vessels/locations/rules

[fivecapes]

I started keeping track of data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ to help me understand how each country has progressed/regressed over time rather than just looking at daily snapshots in a vacuum. I only started doing this over a week ago so it captures the tail end in East Asia, the brunt in Europe and the start in NA.

In addition to the CFR, I've looked at Recovery, Active, and Critical rates relative to the total number of cases. We want to see LOW Mortality, Active and Critical rates, and HIGH Recovery rates. To be clear the CFR is the academic CFR so will look exaggerated in a country with high deaths and few recoveries eg. UK, or when case numbers are low. What's more important is to look at the trend over time, and whether numbers are rising or dropping.

For eg. France looks like it might be trouble with a 11% Critical rate, this might test their health care system. It's encouraging to see the Active rate declining (Recoveries increasing) in Italy and Spain even though number of deaths are mounting daily. It would be bad news if we don't see higher Recoveries 2-3 weeks after an outbreak starts, or testing/isolation is so slow that cases are still rising faster than recoveries thus extending the outbreak.

Let me reiterate that this is a very superficial look into how COVID-19 is affecting each country over time. I'd prefer this NOT to devolve into a turd slining fest about under/over reporting, fake numbers or what measure each government did /did not implement (although inferences can be somewhat anecdotally gleaned). Constructive criticsm, however, is welcomed.

Disclaimer. I am not responsible for the accuracy of the data or analysis or actions you may or may not take as a result.

[fivecapes]

IHME Model that Dr. Birx and others are using

https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections - US only

'preferred' states to be infected...Montana, Wyoming.
'Bama, New York not so much.

[hpeer]

Patient outcome from China and Italy

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by fivecapes

I started keeping track of data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Nice work, I assume the columns f>I are the most recent.

Will you republish this weekly?

[Sand crab]

There are 245,646 cases in the US with 6068 deaths. New York state has about a third of the total deaths but 25% of the total are in NYC alone.

The death rate is still doubling about every 4 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._United_States
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6

[Montanan]

Article published today, April 3rd, regarding the limited potential of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for treating coronavirus and the demand increase which has led to widespread shortages of hydroxychloroquine for patients who need it to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the indications for which it was originally approved.

Authored by: Katherine Seley-Radtke, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry and President-Elect of the International Society for Antiviral Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-tri...124054137.html

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Article published today, April 3rd, regarding the limited potential of effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for treating coronavirus and the demand increase which has led to widespread shortages of hydroxychloroquine for patients who need it to treat malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, the indications for which it was originally approved.

Authored by: Katherine Seley-Radtke, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry and President-Elect of the International Society for Antiviral Research, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

https://www.yahoo.com/news/small-tri...124054137.html

Here’s one of many other that show promise.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.barr...cy-51585748653
There was another out of China with ‘promising results as well as a second trial out of France. I find it funny that they keep trying to discredit small scale trials with other small scale trials.

[smbdyiam2]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Nice work, I assume the columns f>I are the most recent.

Will you republish this weekly?

Hmmm


Closed Cases
283,049
Cases which had an outcome:
226,062 (80%)
Recovered / Discharged

56,987 (20%)
Deaths

gee when I was looking at these I said 1 out of 5 My mistake it was just 20%

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/




https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6
well I might learn something later

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Sand crab

There are 245,646 cases in the US with 6068 deaths. New York state has about a third of the total deaths but 25% of the total are in NYC alone.

The death rate is still doubling about every 4 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli..._United_States
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6

The guestimate at https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections is showing the peak number of deaths is in 13 days, ie, April 16th. The website has not updated yesterday's numbers but the projection was for a little over 1,000 deaths. The peak will be 2,644 in 13 days. If one looks the have a range though. On the peak day the range is 1,216 to 4,136 which is a heck of a big range.

They project 1,015 deaths a day out until May 10th. First of June is 222 and on July 1st is 17.

So how good is the guestimate?

I have kept a page up for my state that is from the end of March so I can compare their guestimate with reality. So far, in terms of fatalities, the actual has been less than the estimate, but lately, they have been spot on accurate. At least the reality is NOT at the high end of the range.

If your numbers, 6,068, were for today, the guestimate was that there would have been 7,004 deaths so the actual deaths is lower. The range was 6,664 to 7,300 deaths.

Not that this is good, but it could be much, much worse.

Later,
Dan

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by rbk

Here’s one of many other that show promise.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.barr...cy-51585748653
There was another out of China with ‘promising results as well as a second trial out of France. I find it funny that they keep trying to discredit small scale trials with other small scale trials.

Near the end of the article I linked it made reference to the reports you appear to mention.

"In another study, posted on medRxiv, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Chinese scientists from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, in Wuhan, China, gave hydroxychloroquine to patients with only mild infections who were free of medical issues, similar to the Gautret study. The results showed that the 31 patients who received the drug showed a lessening of their symptoms 24 hours earlier than patients in the control group. In addition, pneumonia symptoms improved in 25 of the 31 patients versus 17 of 31 in the control group. As noted in several of the comments associated with the manuscript, there are issues related to the translation of the paper, thus clouding interpretations of some of the results. The paper also appears to focus more on pneumonia than COVID-19. However, these issues may be cleared up or addressed once the paper finishes the peer-review process.

But two other studies have conflicting results.

A second French group, led by Jean-Michel Molina, has now tested the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin combination treatment in 11 patients at the Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, France, and their results were strikingly different.

Like the Marseille study, the Molina trial was also a small pilot study. Molina and colleagues used the same dosing regimen as Gautret. In contrast, however, to the Gautret study, eight of the 11 patients had underlying health conditions, and 10 of 11 had fevers and were quite ill at the time the dosing began.

These Paris researchers found that after five to six days of treatment with hydroxychloroquine (600 mg per day for 10 days) and azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 2 to 5), eight of the 10 patients still tested positive for COVID-19. Of these 10 patients, one patient died, two were transferred to the ICU and another had to be removed from the treatment due to serious complications. Four of the ten progressed poorly.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by dannc

The guestimate at https://covid19.healthdata.org/projections is showing the peak number of deaths is in 13 days, ie, April 16th. The website has not updated yesterday's numbers but the projection was for a little over 1,000 deaths. The peak will be 2,644 in 13 days. If one looks the have a range though. On the peak day the range is 1,216 to 4,136 which is a heck of a big range.

They project 1,015 deaths a day out until May 10th. First of June is 222 and on July 1st is 17.

So how good is the guestimate?

I have kept a page up for my state that is from the end of March so I can compare their guestimate with reality. So far, in terms of fatalities, the actual has been less than the estimate, but lately, they have been spot on accurate. At least the reality is NOT at the high end of the range.

If your numbers, 6,068, were for today, the guestimate was that there would have been 7,004 deaths so the actual deaths is lower. The range was 6,664 to 7,300 deaths.

Not that this is good, but it could be much, much worse.

Later,
Dan

Just keep in mind that the death rate is much higher than posted and none of us know what that number is. You didn't die from it unless you were tested positive. Just the way it works.

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Near the end of the article I linked it made reference to the reports you appear to mention.

"In another study, posted on medRxiv, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, Chinese scientists from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, in Wuhan, China, gave hydroxychloroquine to patients with only mild infections who were free of medical issues, similar to the Gautret study. The results showed that the 31 patients who received the drug showed a lessening of their symptoms 24 hours earlier than patients in the control group. In addition, pneumonia symptoms improved in 25 of the 31 patients versus 17 of 31 in the control group. As noted in several of the comments associated with the manuscript, there are issues related to the translation of the paper, thus clouding interpretations of some of the results. The paper also appears to focus more on pneumonia than COVID-19. However, these issues may be cleared up or addressed once the paper finishes the peer-review process.

But two other studies have conflicting results.

A second French group, led by Jean-Michel Molina, has now tested the hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin combination treatment in 11 patients at the Hôpital Saint-Louis in Paris, France, and their results were strikingly different.

Like the Marseille study, the Molina trial was also a small pilot study. Molina and colleagues used the same dosing regimen as Gautret. In contrast, however, to the Gautret study, eight of the 11 patients had underlying health conditions, and 10 of 11 had fevers and were quite ill at the time the dosing began.

These Paris researchers found that after five to six days of treatment with hydroxychloroquine (600 mg per day for 10 days) and azithromycin (500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 2 to 5), eight of the 10 patients still tested positive for COVID-19. Of these 10 patients, one patient died, two were transferred to the ICU and another had to be removed from the treatment due to serious complications. Four of the ten progressed poorly.

I think a big part of these small trials are biased to some degree or another. And while complications can arise from almost any treatment or even ‘cures’ there will alway be some complications and nothing is ever guaranteed more so with medicine. Everyone is rushing to prove or disprove any one of the proposed treatments meanwhile people are dying. I have read many reports of patients in critical condition being given a choice with written consent to use a variety of treatments; at that point, certain death or any possibility of recovery most will opt to give anything a try myself included, unless there is a conflict with other meds/existing conditions, which is easier to discern with a well known drug.
On a side note they have also been finding that a good healthy dose of zinc (more so if person is deficient) can greatly aid regular recovery as well as experimental treatment like HCQ. I say healthy dose as too much zinc like most anything comes with some major health consequences.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by rbk

On a side note they have also been finding that a good healthy dose of zinc (more so if person is deficient) can greatly aid regular recovery as well as experimental treatment like HCQ. I say healthy dose as too much zinc like most anything comes with some major health consequences.

https://www.uchealth.org/today/zinc-...t-of-covid-19/

[Singularity]

I'm thinking that it would be best to now allow speculation on any specific treatments here. Zinc is no free lunch; it's plausible that it can make people who were not destined for bad disease to get better quicker, while making those who were destined to get worse have a tougher go of things. There's a lot more present than meets the eye while not citing this along with the "look what I found" posts can ultimately be problematic for people.

https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.10...plement.1067.4

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/10/2222/htm

https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volu....000566.php#r7

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Singularity

I'm thinking that it would be best to now allow speculation on any specific treatments here. Zinc is no free lunch; it's plausible that it can make people who were not destined for bad disease to get better quicker, while making those who were destined to get worse have a tougher go of things. There's a lot more present than meets the eye while not citing this along with the "look what I found" posts can ultimately be problematic for people.

https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.10...plement.1067.4

https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/10/2222/htm

https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volu....000566.php#r7

I didn’t read the last link posted regarding zinc so maybe the above is related to that specific article.

Zinc deficiencies are well known contributors to immune complications. It plays a vital role in CD4 T cells and the production of cytokines as well as the proliferation and activation of T cells through mitosis (zinc deficiencies reduce the ability of the immune system to produce & activate antibody producing T cells) The zinc aspect in recent studies may have more to do with zinc deficiencies in developing areas (such as parts of China) where a population with an existing zinc deficiency may play a role in recovery rates. Zinc levels may or may not be impacted in this infection due to demands on the immune system depleting the body of stores. Too much can cause increased inflammation and obvious toxicity.
What’s also interesting is the increase in loss of taste and smell in the infected as zinc plays a major role in both and is known to result in loss of both in zinc deficient patients.